memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Kathryn Janeway
Janeway's Year-of-Birth Setting up a forum to hash this'''item out.--Emperorkalan 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC) So...didja set the forum up? I'm looking forward to debating this. I know of one site that dedicated itself to this problem, stating that 2334, 2335 and 2338 last being my choice for truth were all candidates, and were ALL derived from readers' interpretations of 'Mosaic' and it's internal chronology Stripey1. :This '''is the forum. Nobody got the ball rolling--Emperorkalan 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Anybody have any thoughts on Janeway's birth year? --TimPendragon 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Allow me to reprint a couple of entries of mine from Memory Alpha on this topic: :Well, when all else fails, work the math back: if in 2373 it had been 19 years since she last played in high school, that would put her in high school in 2354. Now, while she was supposed to have been bright, it was nowhere stated that she was some sort of child prodigy, so it's not unreasonable to assume that she was in the normal age range for high school students (mid- to late teens). We don't know when exactly she stopped playing: all through school but nothing afterwards? Gave it up in sophmore year? So that doesn't help narrow it down. So: if she's somewhere between 14 and 18 in 2354, then she was born sometime between 2340 and 2336 (and guessing from the may birthdate and leaving open the possibility of having skipped a grade, I'd say the highest probability is for 2337 or 2338, but that's just me). --Emperorkalan 17:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC) '' and :''Lets try this in the extream. 1)What's the youngest age of a person in the acadamy? 2)What's the shortest time a person has taken to graduate? 3)What's the fastest a person has become captain? Jaf 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf ::''1) 16 or 17 years old. 2) 3 years (and that's speculation). 3) Kirk took 11 years (by the 24th Century, Kirk no longer had the record, but his career is still really fast-track). Adding those minimums is 30 years. If she's 30 when she takes command of Voyager in 2371, then she's born in 2341 (and would have to be in high school at 13 to give up tennis in 2354, but that's consistent with entering SFA at the youngest possible age)(If she was born in 2344, she would have last played tennis at age 10, but we know she played until at least age 12). But there's also no material indicating she was THAT fast-tracked. So we keep coming back to somewhere in the late 2330s or really really early '40s. Again, I'll advance 2337 or 2338 as "most likely" dates, which fit all the known criteria without requiring Janeway to be super-exceptional in a way that probably would have been mentioned sometime in seven years aboard Voyager. --Emperorkalan 15:14, 3 April 2006 (PDT) Those calculations extend from two comments: That she hadn't played tennis in 19 years (in 2373), and that she gave up tennis in high school. My calculations above neglected one possibility: that "giving up" tennis just meant ceasing playing regularly. She could have played an occasional game here and there until 2354 (19 years before 2373), so there's a potential for up to a few more years tucked in between those two parameters--Emperorkalan 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC) I'm leaving the Janeway debate to the rest of you, hoping you arrive back at 2338. As for the youngest age, it IS indeed sixteen, and Shiboline M'Ress holds that record [both in your accepted The Ambergris Element and non-accepted M'Ress: A 'Star Trek' Novel. Youngest ever graduate? Travis Mayweather, as per various datapoints. :Another two datapoints to consider from Mosaic: meeting Data as a cated when she was 9 and being in the Academy at the same time as Riker. 2338 would be a little late for Data, but 2336 would match up with both those Academy spans, plus is consistent with the above tennis-talk.--Emperorkalan 19:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC). Middle Name Someone's put up Elizabeth for this. In my opinion, she's called Kathryn Marie Elizabeth Janeway, based on (a) Internet biographies made by fans. (b) The fan-created dedication page 'Captain Kate Page', giving her the name Marie and © The middle initial M. as given in the novelisation of Caretaker, Parts I And II. However, I won't add any of these to the Memory Beta article, except maybe, at some point, the initial M.. So...the question remains on what source the Elizabeth that's been added is from--83.100.130.66 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) :I don't know the origin of "Elizabeth", but your points "(a)" and "(b)" are both fanon (products of non-lisenced fan-fiction) and are not applicable here. Point "©", the novelization, however definitly is. Anyone? A source for "Elizabeth"? --Turtletrekker 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I know (a) and (b) are fanon and therefore not applicable here. I learnt that way back when, regarding M'Ress. I haven't made that mistake again.--213.249.224.75 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Once Upon a Planet Somehow, this TAS episode has made it's way onto Janeway's article. What's supposed to be in it's place, anyone?--83.100.232.234 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Meeting Tuvok I have changed the section on her first meeting with Tuvok to indicate that she was a Captain (as in Mosaic and Pathways) and altered the date to 2365 as in the Pocket Books Timeline. It used to be Lt. Cmdr and 2262. Anybody know why? The 2365 date actually makes sense as Janeways says in "Revulsion" she has relied on Tuvok for 9 years and she is already a captain. As far as I can tell, the only information anywhere to have it set anywhere else is that Tuvok says he has known Janeway for 20 years in "Fury" which is clearly way off. --Jdvelasc 07:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Rank A user has reported the "problem" that Janeway should be a vice-admiral. This is the rank that Memory Alpha has her listed as in Nemesis. What confirmation is available of this? It isn't clear to me from our picture how many pips she has on her collar (three would be vice admiral). Is there any text one way or the other? And how about the books? Anything clearly indicate her rank? --Jdvelasc 14:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC) :In stills/screencaps from the movie, as well as other pictures of her auctioned costume, all show her wearing the three-pip VADM rank. -- Captain MKB 15:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC) :Thanks Mike. Barring direct evidence to the contrary, this is a clear reason to say that she holds the rank of vice admiral (despite the strange leap in ranks). Is there anything in the books which specifically mentions her rank at any time (post captain)? --Jdvelasc 15:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ::Also, she is clearly identified as a vice-admiral in Before Dishonor. Maybe she was promoted directly from captain to vice-admiral just as other Voyager crew members jumped a step? I will fix the article accordingly. --Jdvelasc 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Command In , Janeway states that was her first command. This page lists two other commands before that. Alternate timeline? – AT2Howell 04:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC) :Same as Kirk, we have an example of an officer who commanded a vessel before being promoted to rank of captain. possible loophole to these considerations that commanders Kirk and Janeway had ships of their own before getting the big four-pip promotion. -- Captain MKB 04:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC) ::But Voyager was her first command, not the first ship she ran as a captain. Oh well. – AT2Howell 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC) :::Hey stuff ends up being contradictory if you write enough books.--Long Live the United Earth 15:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) ::::And hey, even the Voyager episodes ignored their own continuity when it saw fit. The books just like to play along. Although this is small fry compared to the wild discrepancies in TOS novels. --The Doctor 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC) :::Doc, don't hold the discrepancies against them; MB wasn't around when they wrote them.--Long Live the United Earth 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Janeway's fate Any users who think that the few sentences describing Janeway's apparent death in Before Dishonor need to be changed should first discuss it here. A user recently pointed out that several authors (such as Peter David http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2007/12/20/star-trek-new-frontier-from-idw/) have made it clear that they consider Janeway to be dead and changed the page. Another user simply reverted that change with no discussion at all as though it was vandalism. I myself read the end of Before Dishonor as though Janeway was in fact dead so I changed the passage back. Various discussions of the book such as at trekbbs.com indicate that many users read it the same way though this is hardly conclusive evidence (though what would be?) --Jdvelasc 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) :Also, as we discuss this, could we please NOT use the phrase "Janeway is dead" in the edit summary of either the talk page or the article, and apply appropriate spoiler messages as this concerns the surprise ending of a book that came out in the past year that some, such as myself, have not read yet. -- Captain MKB 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC) I think Tim was entirely justified in reverting that edit; the previous editor removed information from the article, more information than their rationale justified. Whether she ever comes back or not, Before Dishonor does have a scene with Janeway post-death which that editor removed details of. Your edit removing the presumed line but not the information on that scene is what the anonymous editor should have done in the first place. --8of5 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC) :Random side comment to Mike. Seriously, the book's been out for a year and a half; there's a statute of limitations on how long one can hide their head in the sand and ask that people not mention events. I could understand if someone put events from A Singular Destiny in the summary field, but something that's been out for over a year seems like it can be safely talked about. --Captain Savar 22:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ::8of5 pretty much keyed in to my train of thought. When an anonymous user removes a good deal of info from an article that should be there, and has a rationale like "well, the writers said this" in the edit summary, I'd say that's worthy of a revert, until some verification can be made, and the article is edited in the proper manner. I haven't seen anything the writers said on the issue, since I haven't been to TrekBBS in a while, and Before Dishonor on its own does lend itself to the interpretation that Janeway is "still alive" in some sense. The article as it stands now, at least, preserves data that the anonymous user shouldn't have removed. Thanks for the fix. :-) --TimPendragon 23:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC) :::ON the subject of the book's age, I hadn't realized -- I thought I would have heard of this earlier. Usually we cap out the spoilage at 1 year though, just to be safe, and there's nothing awful about me reminding, but thank you for clarifyng, Capt. :::AS to Janeway, yeah this sounds like something we should discuss. How is her post-fatal scene portrayed as playing out? Is it just that she talked to Q after dying (a la Tapestry)? -- Captain MKB 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Lady Q leads her off, telling her she has more to do. Or something like that. – AT2Howell 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC) :::::The sequence is basically played as an out-of-body experience for Janeway: She's standing there, talking with Lady Q, while she watches herself become the Borg Queen, and then they "walk off" together. There's the definite implication that Janeway's journey is not over. --TimPendragon 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC) :::::: Em.. that's not what happens - she has the experience *after* she dies - she sees nothing. KB and all the other current writers see her as dead and they have explicitly stated that this is also the editoral line over at pocket. I'll dig up some quotes in the morning. -- 00:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Mike, yes, sorry, I probably should not have put "dead" in the edit summary. The anon user's earlier edit summary immediately alerted me to something that I wanted to look at right away since it was interesting to me. I was just doing the same. But "Janeway's fate in before dishonor" would have been equally good. And yes, the sequence with Lady Q (I don't have the book right now) is definitely worth mentioning so the anon user should not have just deleted it, but that user does have a point about the death. We could try to discuss it here, but the obvious place for something like that is on trekbbs or some other forum - and is has already been discussed there several times (though there is an active thread about Janeway right now - I think I will post a clarification question and see what happens. --Jdvelasc 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Noting birthdate discrepencies? Should we note the discrepancies regarding Janeway's birthdate? I'm perfectly happy with the 2335 birthdate in the main article, but Starship Creator Warp II says 2332, one Okudagram in an episode said 2344, and there have been others... -- 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :We should indeed yep. --8of5 11:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Starfleet service record table - Help! I tried to add Janeway's stint abord the USS Mary Kingsley, but can't get a grip of the damnable "rowspan=2" technobabble - It's beyond my comprehension, unfortunately. Please can someone try and fix my hamfisted attempts at updating it? In The Buried age, she's a lieutenant and second officer in September 2359, but there's no further details other than the mission lasted 2 years. However, it's not clear if Janeway was aboard the full 2 years, or if she was promoted during that time. Thank you in advance. Cyfa 15:17, July 20, 2011 (UTC) :Please ignore my earlier wailing and gnashing of teeth - I seem to have fixed it. Well... To a point. I think there should be a gap between Janeway's service on the Mary Kingsley and the Billings. There's certainly a couple of years missing (2361-2363), but seeing as those years don't, so far, seem to be pinned down in prose, maybe the gap's ok? --Cyfa 21:45, July 22, 2011 (UTC) I do not understand how Janeway was a vice admiral in star trek nemesis when clearly she is younger then captain PicardStephen2162 (talk) 00:16, January 28, 2014 (UTC)Stephen2162 :Age does not matter when personnel are promoted. It's based upon merit, not age. - Nx1701g (talk) 02:49, January 28, 2014 (UTC) ::Even more realistically, age and relative experience or even merit may not matter as much as availability and politics... ::But none of this is on topic for this talk page. This talk page is to discuss changes to the article based on valid Star Trek published sources. Those valid sources show Janeway's rank fairly clearly, therefore there is no point is discussing whether it is correct to any one person's point-of-view -- the article is correct and no changes are necessitated by such discussion. -- Captain MKB 03:08, January 28, 2014 (UTC) :There's always the Janeway haters' theory that she was promoted to keep her from ever commanding a ship again... StarSword (talk) 06:27, January 29, 2014 (UTC) Dating Chakotay Would it not be inappropriate for Janeway to date Chakotay as she is his superior officer.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 23:41, February 9, 2014 (UTC) :Complicated question, reliant on the fact that Starfleet is only Mildly Military. I've analyzed this fairly extensively for my fanfics, and Starfleet doesn't appear to have any policy against fraternization. This makes some sense on grounds that unlike, say, a United States Navy ship, a Starfleet vessel is on occasion out for months or years at a time between ports. Also note that even the wording of real-life anti-fraternization regs notes that the intent is to prevent relationships that are harmful to the organization. Finally, note that most of the on-screen romances we've seen were between people in different specialties or departments: **O'Brien x Keiko? Operations and Science. **Worf x Troi? Security and Medical. **Worf x Jadzia? Command and Science. **Tom x B'Elanna? Tactical and Engineering. **Chakotay x Seven? Command and Science. **Julian x Ezri? Okay, granted, that one's medical/medical, but he's a surgeon and she's a psychologist and they don't report to each other. :My personal interpretation is that you're not allowed to date your direct superior but pretty much anything else is permitted. At the time this romance took place Chakotay was not in Janeway's direct chain of command, et voila. --StarSword (talk) 00:12, June 28, 2014 (UTC) ::Interestingly in Voyager Janeway actually answered this question, but in relation to someone else. In the episode Workforce when she regained her memories her boyfriend from the episode visited the ship and asked her about staying aboard and in their relationship. She said that it would be inappropriate because she was the Captain of the ship and would be his superior. - Nx1701g (talk) 14:11, June 28, 2014 (UTC)